Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GRUNHERZ on January 31, 2004, 12:57:47 PM
-
But of course mommy USA and daddy US Army will always be there in a pinch for little Jecques....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4099098/
A French naval crewman who served on the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in 2002 was even more frank on the topic.
“The Charles de Gaulle is the most powerful ship in Europe, and it was like a bathtub toy when we sailed with the American fleet,” he says. “No one has any illusions of matching America in such things. But I think the French – the Europeans – want you to stop treating us like we owe you something. It is time to let us move out of the house.”
Europe is just a bratty teenager and this frenchy guy said it just right. Modern europe, far from being old and wise, is merely a postwar child of America, now they are teenagers and feel they want to move on on their own in some limited way. I think this best explains the conflict we had over iraq.
-
I am from europe, but no longer a teenager.
-
No, but now you are no longer a teenager, you've put on weight becoming just another obese Yank. Now you cling to Bush like he's Dr. Atkins in disguise and wait for the promised results from his particular New Diet Revolution. Short term, the results look rosy... but nothing is known about the long term consequences.
-
It's a good analogy. I only hope that Europe doesn't revert to slaughtering each other like they did before the US stabilized things (twice).
-
once.
-
I love it how the true sweethunks show it by making fun of my weight in political discussions!! WTG
Thanks Dowding!
-
muhehe what a original joke...
may be 3 or 4 years ago American got reputation of infantile child
even people whitch have to work with them cry about their mentality of small angry child...
and after those years we can read that they consider us to be a teen agers
LOL
-
What are you babbling about? I had no idea you had a weight problem. Why should I? I've never seen you mention it before.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
What are you babbling about?
So now you are making fun of my speech impediment? You just dont know when to stop.....
:lol
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. Grun, I'm getting that VHS tape from Bosnia digitised. If you're interested I'll make it available for you.
Yes I would like to see that, thanks.
My speech impediment? Cant yiu see teh way I speal on the BBS? :)
-
Well I'm sorry for any offence caused. I was just making a stupid analogy as counter-point to the stupid analogy at the start of the thread. :)
-
Thanks. :) No offence really, I'm comfortable with it for now or I'd do something about it, is really pretyy easy. My only concern is because somebody else is lowering thermselves to argue on that level, and thats not productive or nice.
Do you find it intersting how that french guy said it? He basically made the argument that I have been thinking about - that europe wants to emerge from americas shadow and protection and yes parentage/leadership since ww2 and cold war.
-
Geezus, lotta footprints on the beach tonight. :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Geezus, lotta footprints on the beach tonight. :)
And to think, I intended this to be a hateful and divisve thread.... ;)
-
GRUN.... i love you ;)
-
gimme some lovin GRUN ?? please :)
-
Don't drop the soap, Nilsen's been drinking again. :)
-
always carry an exra bar just incase some hunk walks by *oops there he goes....dropping the soap and praying for some lovin* :D
-
Grunherz you have an awful tendency to resort to schoolyard political posturing. Luckily real politicans know the realities, even George Bush.
But to answer your point to some extent. The quote was from a Frenchman. The French as you may have noticed have a particular view on Europe the world and the USA. They closed US bases in France in the sixtiies and there was even some tension which led to some semi serious 'mock' dogfights with American jets at one stage.
As a European you know quite well the French doesn't represent all of Europe, only themselves.
As for coming out of America's shadow, well the EU was set up to do just that. By linking nation states, war is less and less likely and all of Europe together represents a rival to the American economy. It's already happened. Europe learned it's lesson sixty years ago.
But if you want to use the teenage analogy, America is the young man who despises his parents, Europe. He thinks they are weak and has had to bail them out once. But he is still immature and hasn't learnt the folly and futility of war or learnt to stay out of trouble. Neither has he learned humility, a bit like you Gruny eh?
But ultimately America is, as someone once wrote, a bit clumsy but well intentioned.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Btw. Grun, I'm getting that VHS tape from Bosnia digitised. If you're interested I'll make it available for you.
What tape is that ... just curious
-
And dont forget that those that could not make it in europe emigrated to america.... so actually the US is made up of loosers that had to flee to make it on their own ;)
and here we go,,,,
:p
-
But he [America] is still immature and hasn't learnt the folly and futility of war or learnt to stay out of trouble.
This is my favorite nonsensical euro opinion.
When excatly did Europe learn the folly of war?
World war 1?
World war 2?
And please dont insult my intelligence and say something like "after the horror of ww2."
Because we all know of all the wars France and Britain and the resat of europe took part in and instigated after ww2....
Did europe learn the folly of war when France restarted colian opression and war in vietnam in the late 1940s?
Did europe learn the folly of war in 1956, when they attacked egypt and tried to steal the suez canal?
What about all the british colinal wars in the mid east and asia?
What about the French colonial wars in africa? alegria ring a bell?
What about the falklands war? Why did the UK attcak thjose helpless argentanian conscrips instead of negotiaing for their withdrawal in un?
What of the french selling of weapons to saddam? I mean why would the enlighted "folly of war" french sell weapons to sucxh n evil warlike man? Its ok for unelighned usa of course, right? So plese dont come back with that...
What about thec war in my country? In the early 1990s. We are fine sophisticaded europeans - did you know the oldest cathedral in the world is in croatia. Yet we tore each other to bits? More shockingly all these euros just stood by. It took the USA to stop the mess. Where was the folly of war there? why didnt the euros stop it if they feel war is so bad?
What about nuclear weapons? France was tesating them as late as 1996... I dont see no folly of war there.
What about the french governments sinking of a greenpeace ship in the 1980s? And murder that went along with it?
What about northern ireland? How much fighting happened there? How much war?
What about the basque terrorists? Surely these "war is folly" europeans would never be violent?
What about the red army fcation terorists who not only created havoc domestically but spread it internationally in hijackings?
So please tell me when exactly, what year, did europe learn of the folly of war? When did it all catch up to them? Tell me, please..
-
I must have blinked and missed the original point of the post....
Tronsky
-
Europe is just a bratty teenager and this frenchy guy said it just right. Modern europe, far from being old and wise, is merely a postwar child of America, now they are teenagers and feel they want to move on on their own in some limited way. I think this best explains the conflict we had over iraq.
-
What about thec war in my country? In the early 1990s. We are fine sophisticaded europeans - did you know the oldest cathedral in the world is in croatia. Yet we tore each other to bits? More shockingly all these euros just stood by. It took the USA to stop the mess. Where was the folly of war there? why didnt the euros stop it if they feel war is so bad?
You always distort the argument. Do I really have to differentiate between nations policies and that of groups with an agenda.
Yes the Europe stood by too long. But which side should they have joined? Gruny. You tell me that! You know quite well the complications of the region you came from. You also know it's not so simple. Just as I know the intimate details of the Northern Ireland problem. Don't dare say America sorted it out. That is simply not true. They stood by too long too and in the end it was NATO not just America who got involved.
WW1 and WW2 were in part a consequnce of Balkan tension. Once bitten twice shy. But the Balkans were as much internal conflicts and the final effects of colonialism. So too were all of the others you mention, almost all of them were consequences of 19th century and earlier imperialism. Europe learned the folly of war as in invading other countries. They have not finished suffering the consequences of past folly. There will never be another European war between nation states. America and to some extent Britain are still in the war and invasion business European objections to the invasion of Iraq was in part based on bitter lessons learned over and over again. Dying for your coiuntry in some foreign field or even in your own country is no longer a popular idea. I'm sorry to say not enough young American soldiers have died yet for that reality to sink in. Whole generations of young men were killed in ruinous wars in Europe and the battles were fought on their doorstep.
50,000 Irishmen died in WW1 alone. That is similar to the number of Americans killed in Vietnam. But the 50,000 came from a country of less than four million. The rest of Europe lost a lot more. That still has it's effect on the psyche.
That's my opinion.
PS don't call me a Euro. Europe to me is 'over there'.
-
50,000 Irish died in WW2? What did this teach you? To become terrorists like the IRA or the protestant thugs or like the brit army and to kill each other?
Thnaks for proving my argument...
Europe not invading other countries after ww2?
Tell that to egypt and vietnam.
There will never be another European war between nation states.
Really?
NATO is America. Everyone knows that. thats why europe wants its own independant army.
Which side should have they joined? I think not the side which souurounded sarajevo and shelled it indescrimately - not so complicated.
-
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
50,000 Irish died in WW2? What did this teach you? To become terrorists like the IRA or the protestant thugs or like the brit army and to kill each other?
It was WW1. This was nation states fighting and was a consequence of imperialism predating the conflict as I said. Oh and by the way the correct term is loyalist thugs not protestant.
Thnaks for proving my argument... No I didn't
Europe not invading other countries after ww2?
Tell that to egypt and vietnam.
Again colonialism, France did not invade Vietnam. It was already theirs. Suez too was colonial in nature and to America's credit the nipped it in the bud.
There will never be another European war between nation states.
Really? Yes really. That's the point of the EU
NATO is America. Everyone knows that. thats why europe wants its own independant army.
Not true on both counts.
Which side should have they joined? I think not the side which souurounded sarajevo and shelled it indescrimately - not so complicated.
If only it were so simple. Taking sides in civil wars is very dangerous. There was a fear that the Russians might take an opposing view just like how WW1 started. That one kicked off in Sarajevo too did it not?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It's a tape that a couple of Norwegian officers made (press corps or liaison staff) from 1992 to 1995 in Bosnia. It's basically 2 hours of uncommented ... truth. The quality isn't very good, but I'll do my best.
Okay...When I was in Bosnia I saw a tape that about the Tunnel that was dug under the Sarajevo Airport and was used to bring supplies and people through the Serb blockade. I was going to buy it but it had been copied so many times the quality was crap.
There is a movie that was directed by a Bosnian , No Man's Land, that is very good. It won an oscar, the only one ever won by a Bosnian. I don't believe it's based on a actual event but it helps explain some of the though process that went on. No heros in the movie, it just showed how screwed up things are there.
-
So after all those deaths in ww1, which you say so traumatized the irish, they decide its cool to have 80 years of civil war and terrorism. I guess the surviors remembered terrorism. What did they learn except to kill each other better. Awesome example thans...
Colonialism eh? Why wouldnt europe learn it was bad after ww2? But thats no excuse. The french had no requirement to return to vietnam. They chose to cause the war there and bring untold suffering to the vietnamese people. No folly there. algeria same.
Suez was an out and out invasion. Your case is so pathetic you must mask agression with colonialism. But hey whatever works for you... Anyway how or why did america stop i if america never learned of folly of war like you say europe magically has - why didnt we just let it go on.. We in the usa think they are fun!!! Right? :rolleyes:
What of enlightened french selling weapons to saddam, blowing up nukes in the late 1990s and sinking greenpeace ships and killing their crews?
Wow you are great comedy there, colianial wars dont fit... OMG like they had to happend...
Its amazing how you deflect european responsibilty for all the wars you cause... ww1 and ww2 were not responsibility of europe but of evil backwards balkans... Colonial wars not fault of europe either, who then the far away brown savages? What inherent racism..
Lets look at ww1. Obviously a serb guy shot the archduke. But are you saying it was fitting in with european morals of the day that 20million would then have to die because of that?
And ww2? Where did europes sophisticatiopn go during the versailles treaty writing? While the US president wilson (evil agressive angry uncultured USA) was promoting his 14 points plan for reconciliation an angry hateful france and here brit allies were drafting up that awful versilles treaty that was one of key and direct causes of ww2....
Not europes fault no, it was all somebody else..
When the USA got involved in the yugo civil war there was no trouble finding the bad guys. An army encamped around a major city and bombing it indesciminaty for years on end is pretty easy to see.. An army which had stolen 1/3 of another nation for years on end is pretty easy to identify... An army that slaughters 10,000 + innocent civilians is easy to identify. An army which flattens hitoric cities and murders all hospital patients and pows they catch is easy to identify and that army was identified very quickly when the war started....
Excucses....
Now all this is past and it is not healthy to be so bitter (thx GS) but I do ask that yiou at least be honest and not provide cheap excuses or wishful false myths of europen moral superority when it comes to understanding the folly of war.
-
(http://home.earthlink.net/~mikeywaltz/ownedballs.jpg)
-
What's with this US hatered towards Europe especially France? Is it still all over the veto against supporting the US lead war over Iraq?
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
-
Originally posted by Gixer
What's with this US hatered towards Europe especially France? Is it still all over the veto against supporting the US lead war over Iraq?
...-Gixer
~Hells Angels~
Where do you see US hatred towards Europe or France?
-
No Offense to any european's here, but...
Europe needs to grow a pair of balls. They need to pule their fruity heads out from ... and realize that people have to die, and people have to be killed for the world to be fixed. Until they do, they will always remain the post ww2 europe.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Europe needs to grow a pair of balls. They need to pule their fruity heads out from ... and realize that people have to die, and people have to be killed for the world to be fixed. Until they do, they will always remain the post ww2 europe.
You just insulted a whole ****load of European countries that are part of the coalition including:
United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Albania, Romania,Czech Republic, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Macedonia.
LMAO! :D
Sweeping generaisation... :rolleyes:
-
What are you talking about Thrawn? The evil USA went into Iraq alone, without any world support, especially not from europe.
Shees even you are falling into the Bush spell of lies...
:eek:
-
Thrawn...you forgot Norway there
-
Grun you are a tard and act like one, fyi Poland and England are in Europe.
Btw every arguments you used are biased and far from neutral
When you will have buy your second book about Europe and WWI we will perhaps be able to discuss.
lasersailor184 I can guess how complex and difficult is the life of a teenager on the other side of the Atlantic
But why to you need to humiliate yourself by showing your ignorance in a BBS read worldwide ?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I think this best explains the conflict we had over iraq.
i dont think that Europe have any conflict in Iraq.
Nor any other ME country.
what do you mean ?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
You just insulted a whole ****load of European countries that are part of the coalition including:
United Kingdom, Spain, Poland, Albania, Romania,Czech Republic, Portugal, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Macedonia.
LMAO! :D
Sweeping generaisation... :rolleyes:
yes this is most funny
Spain is in coalition but 95% of people were against war... Prime minister don give a ****** and ****** will of his oven people
Czech .. Our president send letter to Bush that **he** support him, while 80% of population was against war. In that time were Riots daily.
Prezident has been already replaced
Its good to check what does support mean. Even today US reputation here didnt rise. But yeah you have support of one old retarded men, whitch had 1 month to pension :D
Same story like money for Mr. Atta
dont know details in other countries
-
In norway its about 50/50 support i belive. Our soldiers in Iraq have very strict ROE. They are combat-engeneers and are there to rebuild the stuff that was destroyed in the war...bridges, roads, schools, watersupply, hospitals and powersupply. They can defend themselves if attacked but they may not attack.
Looks like the Iraqies know why the norwegians are there cause they have not been under attack at all and they are welcomed wherever they go when the iraqis see that they carry the norwegian flag and are not part of the invading nations.
-
Poland and england are in europe, so what? What on earth does that have to do with my argument?
Whoops i see what you mean: I was being sarcastic in response to thrawns post. :)
And why so testy straffo, ur usually ok guy? But now you call me ignorant and suggest I know nothing about history? Are you drunk or otherwise upset/unstable at this time? ;)
Do you disagree that france after ww2 did WILLINGLY to enforce AGAIN its pre ww2 vietnam colonial rule with an agressive military presence? They invaded vietnam and even used the POW japanese troops against the vietnamese people at start?
Did not france attack egypt in 1956 along with england and israel?
Did france not wage a brutal opressive war in algeria?
Did france not sink the greenpeace ship and kill a crewmember?
Did france not test nukes as late as 1996?
As for versailles please show me an account where france was offering the terms of reconcilation and the usa demanding outrageus conditions which lead to ww2...
-
Originally posted by maslo
i dont think that Europe have any conflict in Iraq.
Nor any other ME country.
what do you mean ?
Political conflict over the Iraq issue, as in the discagremment between the USA coalition (USA + most of europe ) and the few noisy "old europe" powers like France, Germany and Russia.
-
lasersailor184 I can guess how complex and difficult is the life of a teenager on the other side of the Atlantic
But why to you need to humiliate yourself by showing your ignorance in a BBS read worldwide ?
Spot on Straff.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
(http://home.earthlink.net/~mikeywaltz/ownedballs.jpg)
Hehehe, you can always count on Funked.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Poland and england are in europe, so what? What on earth does that have to do with my argument?
hard to say hows situation in poland ... you must ask some polish guys
anyway Polish goerment were *****ing about US Visa policy
something like... we are soo cooool friend in iraq, so be so kind and cancel Visa for us
:D
coool they are able to kill for US only for free permition to travell :D
hard to say whats cooking in poland
dont forget that most of country did join only to participate on reconstruction...
but there will be no reconstruction under US flag if election will occure :P
-
where in the US do you live GRUN?
-
You have to forgive Grunherz for being bitter for this old continent. You have to understand the circumstances that forced him to escape to the US. He grew up and lived in a communist yugoslavia - which puts his ideas and the newly nationalistic blubber in a context. He's like the happy little puppy after you throw him a bone.
Grunherz is now blind to the fact that the US hasn't been any more peaceful than any other country in the history. It all started with the massive slaughter of the indigineous population of America (yes he forgets modern americans are actually european immigrants that fled the depression or the offspring of the african slaves), then followed massive slavery, racism and civil war. Then when the escalation of war forced the U.S. to take part during WWi and II Grun mistakes it for being simply a friendly gesture on behalf of the U.S. While it in reality was a cold strategic move. It was absolutely necessary for the U.S. to stop hitler before he could gain domination of 90% of the worlds natural resources. In G's mind its bent to 'we bailed out your asses.' Buddy, THEY bailed out their own tulips after they realised the rest of the europe wasn't equipped to stop hitler after years of fighting. You weren't even born at that time AFAIK. The final wakeup was Pearl Harbour as they understood U.S. soil wasn't safe from the growing military power and its allies.
Then the Korean and Vietnam wars, conspiracy which lead to the assassination of JFK as he wanted to pull the plug on military expense.. And the list goes on and on. Modern history shows that the U.S. is on the top of the list of hostile activities against other nations. You as an american have really nothing to say to the europeans or anyone else for that matter.
Get off your high horse and smell the coffee.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Poland and england are in europe, so what? What on earth does that have to do with my argument?
Whoops i see what you mean: I was being sarcastic in response to thrawns post. :)
And why so testy straffo, ur usually ok guy? But now you call me ignorant and suggest I know nothing about history? Are you drunk or otherwise upset/unstable at this time? ;)
Sorry didn't noticed the sarcasm.
I was neither drunk nor upset, I was in hurry because I was cooking (and dinking wine but just for tasting I swear :))
Do you disagree that france after ww2 did WILLINGLY to enforce AGAIN its pre ww2 vietnam colonial rule with an agressive military presence? They invaded vietnam and even used the POW japanese troops against the vietnamese people at start?
To bad ,I thought we killed all those japaneses.
We should have any way at least murdered some as it's how their "honnor" system work.
But I'm pissed as we were finaly able to bury decently my great uncle honorably killed by a saber and some bayonnettes when he was bleeding having his legs teared by a grenade.
Did not france attack egypt in 1956 along with england and israel?
They didn't attack they defended.
Did france not wage a brutal opressive war in algeria?
Yep and the Algerian were not boyscout either.
Where is your point here ? (honestly)
Did france not sink the greenpeace ship and kill a crewmember?
Did france not test nukes as late as 1996?
yes and so ?
As for versailles please show me an account where france was offering the terms of reconcilation and the usa demanding outrageus conditions which lead to ww2...
How many time should I say that you can be generous when you enter a war 3 year after the other , after sucking their gold and not having about 1/3 of the richest part your territory devasted.
It's pure propaganda ... exactly like when some idiot say : The USA won WWII.
Without taking into account that the Atlantic was a better protection than any fortification.
If you want to play a whatif kreigspiel using the US force instead of the French troop ... you will notice the Fall of France campaign duration would have been some day instead of some weeks ...
There is no point in arguing with propaganda.
-
[When were you there, and where? I was in Tuzla. [/B][/QUOTE]
In 2002 (March-December). I worked in Sarajevo but traveled around the country a bit. Was in Tuzla a couple times.
-
euros crave to have a moomy run their lives... if not us then they will elect socialists to nanny them.
lazs
-
Heh, this thread makes you all look like fat, bratty teenagers.
-
"Europe is just a bratty teenager and this frenchy guy said it just right. Modern europe, far from being old and wise, is merely a postwar child of America, now they are teenagers and feel they want to move on on their own in some limited way. I think this best explains the conflict we had over iraq."
Ya you must have it right. Everyone that thought it wrong to invade Iraq is just crazy or jeolous. Its just crazy talk really...
-
Siaf unlike you I did not grow up the rich son of a banker in switzerland on a fortune built of stolen jewish blood money from the holocaust, so when I see the wealth and more importantly opprtunity that America provides me I dont take that wealth and opportunity for granted.
I hope you can understand that.
-
Well Grun,
I had to re-read my post to see how you could have misunderstood it so completely. You are so wrong sometimes I wonder if you are trolling. But then I read yours again and saw this.
When the USA got involved in the yugo civil war there was no trouble finding the bad guys. An army encamped around a major city and bombing it indesciminaty for years on end is pretty easy to see.. An army which had stolen 1/3 of another nation for years on end is pretty easy to identify... An army that slaughters 10,000 + innocent civilians is easy to identify. An army which flattens hitoric cities and murders all hospital patients and pows they catch is easy to identify and that army was identified very quickly when the war started....
Apart from wrongly giving the US full credit again, the rest is quite revealing about you and places you firmly in one ethnic camp. This of course has coloured your view of the whole situation. I fear that your perception of Europe is quite different to that of most Europeans and I think Americans. The degree of bitterness you feel has been caused by what happened in your homeland. That explains a lot. Your devotion to America begins to make sense now. That's fine America is a great place to be. But the rest of the world is not so bad either sometimes.
-
Tell me do you really think that the war over there was not the
main guilt of Miloshevic? He was the one who sent in tanks to attack slovenia, then turned his federal army on croatia and then bosnia. Ethnic or no ethnic differences only a deluded mind would not recognize the primacy of his guilt.
You are so funny, whats next that Hitler and the Nazis were not the main ones at fault for actually starting the fighting of ww2?
I'm not saying the rest of the world is any more "bad" that the USA. I'm just reacting to the ridiculus notion that somehow europe is pure as the driven snow and has recognized the folly of war unlike the barbaric USA as you state...
USA gets full credit because it did most of the work and was certainly the one that instigated the 1995 bombing of serb positions and USA helped plan the joint 1995 croatian/bosnian allies ground offensive that liberated 1/3 of croatia and much of bosnia... The USA had no trouble making the EASY moral decision on who the bad guys were and whom they needed to help win the war....
-
Yes it was Miloshevic. We all know that. He attempted to use Serb paranoia to bolster his position. It was a naked grab for power on his part. So obviously everyone should have jumped in on and attacked Serbia? It was a move like that which brought down the Hapsburg empire. A lesson learned. On the other hand you could argue that he was attempting to preserve Yugoslavia. so everyone should have joined in on Serbia's side? You decide.
Hitler started WW2, true. But you could argue that the French and British caused it with the Versailles treaty. Or it was because of the general feeling in the German army that WW1 was lost because of Communists and Jews and the in fact the army was not militarily defeated. Or maybe you could blame Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo 1914 or the Serb government who funded them. Back to those Serbs again. Or it could be the Austrians who attacked Serbia or the Russians who threatened Austria because they attacked Serbia thus provoking the Germans who attacked Russia which brought in the French and the British.
The blame game is fun.
I didn't say Europe is as pure as driven snow or that America is barbaric. Neither is true.
As for easy moral decisions, well Croatians perpetrated war crimes too. Not so easy and not so moral then?
The point is that nothing is so black and white as you seem to think.
-
All sides commied attrocities in the civil war, as did all sides in WW2 - neither takes away from the fact that the worst atrocities and most outrageus behavior were undoubtyably commited by the serbs and the nazis.
Eisenhowerr to the Hague!!!! Roosevelt to Nurnberg!!!! Churchil to the gallows.. Hardly....
But its cool man, the USA came in eventually with a real political will to kill the bad guys and it turned out ok, sort of.
-
where in the US do you live GRUN?
-
California.
GS its not really "hate." My actual thoughts and emotions on the subject are beyond the scope of BBS discussion and my slow typing. Perhaps we can one day discuss in real life...
As for being biased, tell me factually where the stuff I said is seriously biased?
I admit all sides commited atrocities in the war. All including my side.
But.
It is obvious that one side commited the worst one and the mst and in the most agregious ways. The serbs...
Thats factually true, is it not?
-
"Our crimes does not count, because what they did was much worse."
It doesnt really work that way.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
"Our crimes does not count, because what they did was much worse."
It doesnt really work that way.
Who said that hortlund? Not me....
Let me put it this way.. An outside pro human rights pro democracy western style democratric power is looking at WW2 and wanting to see who the bad guys are to intervene in favor of the good guys.
Do they join the axis or allies?
OR:
By 1995 if instead of bombing the serbs the USA/NATO attacked bosnians and croats would America and allies have accomplised their objectives just the same?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
"Our crimes does not count, because what they did was much worse."
It doesnt really work that way.
ouch
again we agree Steve :)
-
Agrre on what, a completely unrealted tangent of hortlunds...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
An outside pro human rights pro democracy western style democratric power is looking at WW2 and wanting to see who the bad guys are to intervene in favor of the good guys.
Do they join the axis or allies?
It kinda depends on when they are looking...
I dunno, do they pick the guys who gas their civilians or do they pick the guys who drop atomic bombs on them? Do they pick the guys who shoot their civilians or the ones who drops incediary bombs on them to watch them burn to death? Do they side with the guys who use slave labour or the guys who rape all women aged 8 to 80 who come in their path?
Why did they want to intervene now again?
-
I agree on the raw sentence not mandatory on the context it was used.
is that clear ?
cleared a bit the sentence
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It kinda depends on when they are looking...
I dunno, do they pick the guys who gas their civilians or do they pick the guys who drop atomic bombs on them? Do they pick the guys who shoot their civilians or the ones who drops incediary bombs on them to watch them burn to death? Do they side with the guys who use slave labour or the guys who rape all women aged 8 to 80 who come in their path?
Why did they want to intervene now again?
So the Nazis have as much of a claim for being the good guys as do the allies, nice...
:aok :rofl :mad:
Oui staffo, merci... UGHHHHRRRHH shivers
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So the Nazis have as much of a claim for being the good guys as do the allies, nice...
Never said that did I?
"Our crimes does not count, because what they did was much worse."
Why would the human rights nation you were talking about want to intervene on any side? If they were pro human rights and pro democracy...they sure would not want to side with the germans...but would they want to side with the communists?
If they were humanitarian, they sure would not want to side with the germans, but would they want to side with firebombers or the a-bomb users?
I edited your post to remove the emoticons...they just made your post look retarded...no need to thank me.
-
They intervened to spare Sweden from being Nazi Germany's willing rent boy. It was getting embarassing. Your country should have grown a pair and been overun like France. At least they put up a fight instead of being submissi... sorry... 'neutral'.
Ciao.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They intervened to spare Sweden from being Nazi Germany's willing rent boy. It was getting embarassing. Your country should have grown a pair and been overun like France. At least they put up a fight instead of being submissi... sorry... 'neutral'.
Ciao.
Actually, if you read up a bit on your history, you would realize that Sweden was, in effect, allied with Germany from 1941 on. That has alot to do with the fact that we *really* dont like the Russians.
And there you have it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They intervened to spare Sweden from being Nazi Germany's willing rent boy. It was getting embarassing. Your country should have grown a pair and been overun like France. At least they put up a fight instead of being submissi... sorry... 'neutral'.
Ciao.
Actually I think you did a bad lecture of Hortlund's post.
IMO he was more speaking of (using another analogy) what side an Alien would have sided with.
Depending of your own background you choose one or the other side.
For me it's obvious but I'm biased being European.
But for a strictly neutral (read ET) point of view and giving you know everything (including shoah etc ...) which side will have you backed ?
The side which industrialised the mass murdering using concentration camp ?
or
The side which industrialised the mass murdering using mass bombing/A-Bomb ?
The question remain open for me (again when trying to be the most neutral I can)
For each human killed during a war it's a tragedie for him and it's familly whatever was his behaviour during the war.
-
Easy. The side that wasn't fighting for a genocidal maniac, who after victory planned to exterminate an entire race from the planet and murder anyone who stood in his way; the US/UK everytime. They were also racing to save as much territory from Stalin's hands in addition to knocking out Hitler.
-
Its amazing how hortlund is making excuses for and otherwise marginalizing nazi atrocites only moments after saying this:
"Our crimes does not count, because what they did was much worse."
It doesnt really work that way.
Wow.... :eek:
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Easy. The side that wasn't fighting for a genocidal maniac, who after victory planned to exterminate an entire race from the planet and murder anyone who stood in his way; the US/UK everytime. They were also racing to save as much territory from Stalin's hands in addition to knocking out Hitler.
Yep, good post dowding.
-
Gunther who gave the niki to Japaneses ?
:D
-
LOl I did not consider the alien angle, was not thinking so far outside. :)
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Easy. The side that wasn't fighting for a genocidal maniac, who after victory planned to exterminate an entire race from the planet and murder anyone who stood in his way; the US/UK everytime. They were also racing to save as much territory from Stalin's hands in addition to knocking out Hitler.
Much to my amusement, I notice that you for some reason seem reluctant to include Stalin among the allies. Maybe because he also was a genocidal maniac?
And if the US/UK were racing to save as much territory as possible from Stalin, then why on earth did they split up Europe between them at Yalta?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its amazing how hortlund is making excuses for and otherwise marginalizing nazi atrocites only moments after saying this:
"Our crimes does not count, because what they did was much worse."
It doesnt really work that way.
Wow....
So, where am I making excuses for the nazi atrocities?
Also note that I, again, tried to save you from looking like a tard by removing the emoticon from your post.
I know that the written language can sometimes be hard to master, but dont give up grun...Im sure you can make yourself understood without drawing little cartoons.
-
The USSR was going to fight Germany anyway, the defeat of whom was the No.1 priority. It was an alliance of convenience rather than melding of nations with similar ideological and political motivations, which is what you're trying to argue. You seem to be making the point that the US/UK was tarred with the same genocidal brush as the USSR. That's bollocks.
What was the alternative to Yalta? A conflict between the USSR and the US/UK in 1945? You're nuts.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
It was an alliance of convenience rather than melding of nations with similar ideological and political motivations, which is what you're trying to argue.
[/b]
No I'm not.
You seem to be making the point that the US/UK was tarred with the same genocidal brush as the USSR. That's bollocks.
[/b]Not only is it bollocks, it is also your own, flawed, interpretation of what I am saying.
What was the alternative to Yalta? A conflict between the USSR and the US/UK in 1945? You're nuts.
Its rather intriguing to see you, Dowding, defend an alliance with a genocidal, butchering maniac. Especially after reading oh-so-many posts by you where you point out how bad the US has been in the past for supporting various dictators.
Anyway,
If the alternatives are
a) enslavement of eastern europe, or
b) a US/UK - USSR conflict in 1945
Even if we limit the options to these two, then I'm pretty sure that most people would agree that it would be better to check the Soviet power grab already in 1945, save the world from a 40 yr old cold war, save hundreds of million lives, and save hundreds of millions of people from a life in slavery...apparently you find the idea idiotic...
but there is also another option,
c) Tell Stalin to back off or face the pointed end of the nuclear arsenal of the USA.
-
It's so easy for you to say 'continue the fight', 70 years after the fact. The last thing the Western powers wanted was to continue the conflict past the point of defeating Hitler. They also knew that the Soviets had an atomic program, but not what stage it was at. Consequently, even though Truman discussed using nuclear weapons against the Russians in '45, it was discarded because of the chance of atomic retaliation.
As for US (and UK) support for dictatorships - these are dictatorships in crappy tin-pot countries in side-show wars, not a do-or-die total war involving the fate of Western civilisation. I think there is an order of magnitude difference in scale. Also, at least quote me in context. I was responding to the POV that Saddam was evil and should be deposed - I think it was worth pointing out the U-turn in Western policy towards him.
So Hortlund, who would you support in WW2? Or would you do as your country did and make a reach for the soap?
-
Bollocks, GScholz. Bomber Harris was equivalent to Stalin? A head of state responsible for killing 12 million people, in peace-time?
-
Originally posted by Dowding
So Hortlund, who would you support in WW2?
Finland.
Edit - And...incidentally...that is exactly what we did in ww2 too.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Bollocks, GScholz. Bomber Harris was equivalent to Stalin? A head of state responsible for killing 12 million people, in peace-time?
Both Harris and LeMay deserves the "guilty of crimes against humanity"-verdict.
The fact that Stalin was more ruthless is hardly relevant.
If LeMay is responsible for 500 000 civilian deaths, and Harris 250 000 (numbers just taken out of thin air by me to make a point) they can hardly say "yeah, but Stalin killed 12 000 000 so we are no where near his particular level of atrocities" as an excuse.
-
Grünherz, if your intent was to discuss whether Europe should be seen as a "teenager" trying to move out of the house, you could have written it just like that and supported it with the quotes you had.
Instead you chose a confrontational and insulting tone in your post. You have some animosity towards Europe and you channel it - and this time by using a "proper" argument as an excuse to "let the Euros have it".
Dude, I like you, but you are starting to disappoint me. You're an intelligent guy with good debating skills, and I enjoy your posts when you use your mind and remain objective and open minded - you dfo have lotsa good things to say. Your delivery as of recent has been somewhat poor and the reception suffers from it. We've talked about this in other threads.
I absolutely know that when I meet you, we'll get along fine and you're likely to be more receptive for others (mine) perception of things - it is as if the BBS sorta exaggerates certain aspects of behaviour. I'm not immune to it either, but I try to remain objective.
I'm a Euro, you're a naturalized American. It doesn't really mean anything.
I'm looking forward to posts from you where there is an objective, non insulting open minded subject. I've seen your early posts and I know you're capable of these. It's not as if I want to or can dismiss the points you raise in more recent posts - it's just I cannot be bothered when I'm first insulted and then realize that whatever I say, it'll be for naught, since I'll first of all be driven on the defensive and thus retaliate in kind, or be percieved as doing so and secondly because I know by then we'll both have national or personal pride involved and will be very unwilling to concede any points.
Anyway, I hope you go back to the Old Grünherz, who was perceptive and curious, rather than the new one, who is more full of anger and has all the definitive answers.
I want the Old Grünherz back dammit! :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
but there is also another option,
c) Tell Stalin to back off or face the pointed end of the nuclear arsenal of the USA.
In early Feb 1945 there was no such option...........
The western Allies were just breaking into Germany and still stuck in Italy whilst the Russian had swept across most of Europe with an army the size of which the world had/has never seen mobilised.
In 45 Russian logistics no longer depended upon Lend
Lease and Stalin had shown that he would kill millions of his own countrymen to achieve his ends.
Russia was still officially an Ally of Japan (Non Aggression Pact)
Poland the very Ally for whom Great Britain declared war on Germany for had already been abandoned to Russia whilst the Western Allies looked on as Stalin ordered his armies to hold at the Vistula until the Nazi's had completed the anialation of the Warsaw rising.
Polands "government in exile" was already an "embarrassment" to the West in October 44. Not a single Pole took part in the London VE day celebration parade in 45 despite the sacrifices made during the BoB.
Roosevelt and Churchill knew the out come of a war with Russia in 45............the West would have lost it and another 20 million would have died, Germany at least would have been totally annexed and the Red army would control the Eastern Mediteranean .
One horror replaced with another. After 5 years of war it could not be contemplated.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
Grünherz, if your intent was to discuss whether Europe should be seen as a "teenager" trying to move out of the house, you could have written it just like that and supported it with the quotes you had.
Instead you chose a confrontational and insulting tone in your post. You have some animosity towards Europe and you channel it - and this time by using a "proper" argument as an excuse to "let the Euros have it".
Dude, I like you, but you are starting to disappoint me. You're an intelligent guy with good debating skills, and I enjoy your posts when you use your mind and remain objective and open minded - you dfo have lotsa good things to say. Your delivery as of recent has been somewhat poor and the reception suffers from it. We've talked about this in other threads.
I absolutely know that when I meet you, we'll get along fine and you're likely to be more receptive for others (mine) perception of things - it is as if the BBS sorta exaggerates certain aspects of behaviour. I'm not immune to it either, but I try to remain objective.
I'm a Euro, you're a naturalized American. It doesn't really mean anything.
I'm looking forward to posts from you where there is an objective, non insulting open minded subject. I've seen your early posts and I know you're capable of these. It's not as if I want to or can dismiss the points you raise in more recent posts - it's just I cannot be bothered when I'm first insulted and then realize that whatever I say, it'll be for naught, since I'll first of all be driven on the defensive and thus retaliate in kind, or be percieved as doing so and secondly because I know by then we'll both have national or personal pride involved and will be very unwilling to concede any points.
Anyway, I hope you go back to the Old Grünherz, who was perceptive and curious, rather than the new one, who is more full of anger and has all the definitive answers.
I want the Old Grünherz back dammit! :)
Thanks santa, I cannot disagree with anything you said. I appreciate your honesty and good will. You are right, and I have also become aware of it that for some reson - perhpas the iraq disagreement or some strange thoughts some have about 911 - I have become somewhat sensitive and reactinary and in turn provocative. Whatever the circumstances are though, I cant make exciuse for it, it is my choice to post in a such a way and I will have to accept responsibilty and decide to be more careful about it. Thanks man.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
They intervened to spare Sweden from being Nazi Germany's willing rent boy. It was getting embarassing. Your country should have grown a pair and been overun like France. At least they put up a fight instead of being submissi... sorry... 'neutral'.
Ciao.
Wow....you sound like me....you feeling ok?